[128207] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: I slogged through it so you don't have to -- ICANN Vertical
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Brunner-Williams)
Mon Jul 26 16:09:59 2010
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:09:43 -0400
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTing+T0AuW2697jQqwsdCB2pD954rSPEMc=uAdYx@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7/26/10 3:28 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
>> before coming up with "the fifth option"?
>
> I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
> ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut&
> past of discussions/text circulated through email lists/blogs/tweets,
> and positions that were clearly stated in meetings and conference
> calls, you are left with few pages with some novelty stuff.
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it
you have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
> Hard to believe there will be any consensus before the Cartagena
> meeting (even after), the BoD will end directing staff to use the
That was my initial view, that there would be consensus around three
proposed policy -- a 15% cap with minor variation, no cap with minor
variation, and happy brand owners, with no consensus between any two
of these three positions. Now I think the no-cap advocates and the
brand advocates will tactically compromise.
> magic wand and negotiate something with VeriDaddy and NeuSign.
Actually the alliances visible at present are:
JN2 proposal: Verisign, NeuStar, NetSol and eNom and others,
RACK proposal: Afilas, PIR, GoDaddy, and others, including CORE.
I look forward to your public comments, here or at the ICANN comment
site.
Eric
